James!: I don't even know what "weepy post-orgasmic liberal fantasy" means.

Rachel Maddow getting a rimjob from Keith Olberman?

blackminded: The_Sponge: Girls

Seriously, who the fark are the people watching this show? And WHY?

A very good question.

HBO tends to have some great shows:

The Sopranos, Deadwood, The Wire, Band of Brothers, Game of Thrones, True Blood (very guilty pleasure), Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire, and I enjoyed the hell out of Veep. I'll even go old school and mention Dream On.

Girls is right in the same category as John From Cincinnati. Just utter dreck.

This was the best satire of Aaron Sorkin and it was done with his cooperation. Tina Fey just bent him over a chair and went balls deep with her strapon, showed how hackneyed his writing and dramatic style are and he was too stupid to realize she was taking the piss out. He might as well have been run through a tree chipper when she was done with him and it only took her 2 minutes of screen time.

"Let's walk and talk."



"We're back where we started."

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: farkeruk: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Damn, I was looking forward to this, lots of great actors - but I've had enough with Sorkin's preaching. It's boring.

Sorkin's writing has the veneer of intelligence, but actually, it's pretty hacky. Look past the smart-ass dialogue at the plot and whether they actually make any sense or have a coherent story conclusion (a guy who's smart enough to have become a Colonel is actually going to admit to having ordered a code red, a president that is repeatedly told he has no chance of doing a crime bill and an environment bill gives it a shot)? This isn't anything like the real world. Most of what he does is simply to provide a security blanket to left-leaning liberals, echoing their own prejudices about people. His characters are one-dimensional and hollow. Go and watch something written by Christopher Nolan or Paul Thomas Anderson and stop wasting your time on his crap.

You're one of those people who mistakes "I don't agree with this character's motivations for what they do" with "this character's motivations make no sense."

No, I think he's right on the money. Sorkin is the type of writer who tries to be clever and political and thinks that is all that is needed to create depth. Part of the problem is that he shoe-horns his POV into his characters without thinking the whole thing through - like David E. Kelly, he is too given to author screeds that a) have little real substance, b) stall the plot, and c) don't feel organic to the character and their present situation. Add some cuteness his writing is like a return to the great television of the 70s and 80s. The problem is, TV is so much more complex now. Even shows like "2 Broke Girls" and "The Middle" are better at getting their ideas across and developing characters worth paying attention to.

/It doesn't help that these same ideas are mostly underdeveloped parroting of much more complex ideas.
//

Damn, I was looking forward to this, lots of great actors - but I've had enough with Sorkin's preaching. It's boring.

Oh, and this:
" it feeds the cliche of liberals as smug elitists who reflexively look down on anyone who doesn't agree."? Aaron Sorking is a smug elitist who reflexively looks down on anyone who doesn't agree with him.